chanel
Silver Member
I belong to the NJEA and pay 900 a year in dues. I would gladly quit but would be forced to pay 85 percent anyway. How unfair is that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?
Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.
well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?
Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.
If the Union did not put in their contract, their wage increase did not include new hires that are not in the union, then I agree, so be it.
And the Union could be doing this intentionally, including those not in the union for the same amount of money, so that there would be no advantage for the owner to go with non union employees, so the union might think, no?
well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?
Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.
If the Union did not put in their contract, their wage increase did not include new hires that are not in the union, then I agree, so be it.
And the Union could be doing this intentionally, including those not in the union for the same amount of money, so that there would be no advantage for the owner to go with non union employees, so the union might think, no?
SIERRA VISTA — Thousands of workers in the state are set to strike tonight if a deal is not reached between union leaders and two grocery chains.
If an agreement between Safeway Inc., Fry’s owner Kroger Co. and the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99 is not reached by 6 p.m., about 25,000 union members in the state could walk out.
Fry’s and Safeway, which together employ more than 400 people in Cochise County, have hired thousands of temporary workers in preparation for a strike.
Striking union members would receive $100 a week, said Jim McLaughlin, president of the union.
In September, union members rejected the most recent offer from the employers and voted to authorize its leadership to call a strike if their demands, which include health care coverage without premiums, are not met.
The offer by the two companies would see employees pay up to $15 a week for coverage.
“The employers want to shift more health care costs onto the workers by forcing them to pay new premium fees in addition to the co-pays, deductibles and other costs they already pay,” union spokes woman Ellen Anreder said in a statement earlier this week.
Showdown looming for union, two grocers | The Sierra Vista Herald
Code Section 23-1302, et seq.; Ariz. Const. Art. XXV
Policy on Union Membership, Organization, etc. No person shall be denied opportunity to work because of nonmembership in a union.
Prohibited Activity Threatened or actual interference with person, his family, or property to force him to join union, strike against his will, or leave job; conspiracy to induce persons to refuse to work with nonmembers; agreements which exclude person from employment because of nonmembership in union.
In a time when Unemployment is topping 10% and people are struggling to pay bills, again we have a Union management that cares little for the people it represents as they always have other than collecting dues and is urging these people to strike for a benefit that many Americans do not get and thats not having to pay for your health insurance. I have an idea, why not take some of the money you take from these people that are making only 10 dollars an hour in the first place and use that to buy them health insurance rather than pay your over bloated Union management salaries. The fact is there people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs if they strike as the companies are all set to replace them. Arizona law is on the companies side in this issue and the only people who are going to lose here are the good people who work at these stores because of an outdated 19th and 20th Century thinking that believes that when you don't get your way go on strike that will solve everything. You would think, after Steele, Textile, Auto, Toys, Aerospace, Computers, etc have all left this nation because of it that eventually someone might learn a lesson.
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.
Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.
Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.
Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?
people then are responsible for accepting the raise given to them, and/or trying to argue with them or prove to them that you deserve more than the measly raise given....IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS to do such and are not afraid of just being "let go" for 'no reason' in a George Orwellian, "Right to Work State".
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
What's to stop those who do not want to be in unions from choosing a job without a union?
They are not forced to work at these union jobs, are they?
Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
What's to stop those who do not want to be in unions from choosing a job without a union?
They are not forced to work at these union jobs, are they?
In a time when Unemployment is topping 10% and people are struggling to pay bills, again we have a Union management that cares little for the people it represents as they always have other than collecting dues and is urging these people to strike for a benefit that many Americans do not get and thats not having to pay for your health insurance. I have an idea, why not take some of the money you take from these people that are making only 10 dollars an hour in the first place and use that to buy them health insurance rather than pay your over bloated Union management salaries. The fact is there people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs if they strike as the companies are all set to replace them. Arizona law is on the companies side in this issue and the only people who are going to lose here are the good people who work at these stores because of an outdated 19th and 20th Century thinking that believes that when you don't get your way go on strike that will solve everything. You would think, after Steele, Textile, Auto, Toys, Aerospace, Computers, etc have all left this nation because of it that eventually someone might learn a lesson.
Would it be a good idea to have a universal health care scheme? That might help in this situation.
I have an idea, what if the taxes these people are paying could be used for a universal health care scheme?
As for the other parts of the post - what are you suggesting? Workers shouldn't be able to bargain????
What I'm suggesting is that in this case like most other cases, Union management has become professional management and has little or no interest in its members welfare. A person should be able to bargin with their employer, however I do not think because a person or a group of person do so, that those that are not subject to that agreement between that employees agreement should be made to do so. As I pointed out, many good people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs over a political issue that the UFCW is pushing and I find this typical of an out of touch management structure that does little but collect dues from its membership for salaries.
Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.
Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.
While I agree that certain unions have historically made outrageous demands, I still believe that without them, the average worker would have suffered even more imbalance between the upper echelon and the cogs in the wheel actually driving the machinery. Unions keep management honest.
I fail to see how advocating for workers freedom to choose their own destiny somehow equates workers being treated like cattle or a number by the wealthy. If someone can answer this question for me then , perhaps I might find some value in a Union forces ALL workers to join their ranks as a condition of employment. Does a man or women go to work for the benefot of all the people they work for or the benefit of themselves and their family? If so, who should have the right to make the decisions as to their own destiny them or some body of the whole? I'm not advocating for the wealthy here, I'm advocating that workers who go to a work place should have the RIGHT to choose for themselves. I submit that people who would advocate that people don't have that right, and somehow that by doing so is a (insert all cliches here). Those are the one's who are really advocating for taking away the rights of others to favor a system that is beneficial for one group and one group only.
I wonder then if the poster by posting Ayn Rands philosphy is now advocating less individual persuit of one's own happiness and now the "collective" is somehow more important? I don't think you would find many, even in within the ranks of the Unions who would honestly admit that they are working for the "collective" and not their own individual happiness. As for Greenspan and Bush II , when it comes to me, I would not assume automatically that any or all of my postings are a ringing endorsement of economic policies of the Bush Administration or Greenspans for that matter.
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.
Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?
people then are responsible for accepting the raise given to them, and/or trying to argue with them or prove to them that you deserve more than the measly raise given....IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS to do such and are not afraid of just being "let go" for 'no reason' in a George Orwellian, "Right to Work State".